Re:Apple v. Samsung - Meet the foreman of the jury
by terminus on Saturday August 25, 2012 @02:31PM
(#4432773)
> On this site I've seen many claims that Apple's patents are covered by "prior art" but the "art" cited is generally nonsensical (eg: 2001: a space odessy having square tablets)
I'm curious, why is the Space Odyssey tablet "obviously nonsensical"?
I'm curious, why is the Space Odyssey tablet "obviously nonsensical"?
See for instance the Waterbed patent denied because of Henlein's writings: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/geek-trivia-strange-wate...